2. 'Hora Sastra' is a general system of astrology, which differs from some other parallel schools as Jaimini, Vrigu, 'Nadi system' etc. Within the Parasara system there are number of sub-systems and what goes in the name of 'Vrihat Parasara Hora Sastra' and 'Laghu Parasara Hora Sastra' must have been penned by scores of different astrologers in different centuries. Some of the slokas must have been composed in the 7th, 8th century B.C. and some are as young as 14th century A.D. In between, a

number of authoritative books on astrology must have been in circulation, some survived only through the works of later astrologers. Some of the slokas of Phala-Deepika and Jataka Parijata (14-15th A.D.) do not only carry similar meaning, even the words used are the same, which indicate that both the author must have used the same source literature which is now lost (the same is true between Narayan Bhatta and Jibannatha).

Classification of Naksatras given in the Parasara is much nearer to Varahamihiras classification than the Vedic classification expounded in Taiteriya Brahmana, though chronologically Parasara is nearer to Vedic period than to second Hindu renaissance (4th-6th century A.D.)

3. There is no evidence that any Indian astrologer including the most daring genius among them, Varahamihira challenged the validity of the design of the birth-chart, and added or subtracted any feature or even tried to explain its construction. The design of the natal-chart and house ownership of different planets was accepted as 'fait accompli'. Nobody defied or questioned the supremacy of zodiacal- ascendant astrology over the venerable stellar-lunar astrology, only Satyacharya repeatedly cautioned about this new fangled idea and advised to step carefully.

4. The design of the natal chart is in fact very simple, and there was no necessity to lose one's sanity trying to decipher it. Probably the ancient astrologers found it so common and useful that just like 'gravity before Newton' nobody found any necessity to enquire about it.

The present author found Parasara full of self-contradictions, interpolations, and humility in the acknowledgement of limitation of astrology, and at the same time, and at the same time complete faith on astrology. From the Parasara the author's reading proceeded upstream to Vedic and Vedanga Jyotisha; Garga and Vashistha (whatever small scraps have survived); then downstream to Mansagar through Satyacharya,

Yavanacharya, Varahamihira, Kalyana Varmana, Jayadeva, Vaidyanatha, Kalidasa, Mantreswara, Narayana Bhatta, Ramanujacharya, Khan Khanan and lesser luminaries (as for the Brigu Samhita, there are two entirely different schools, both claiming authenticity) and it became apparent, that these plethora of authors differ only in their 'phaladesh' (results of planetary positions), there is virtually complete unanimity about the attributed appearance, and the physical, mental and sexual characters of the planets. Nobody questioned the house ownership or exalted or debilitated positions of the planets. This universal concurrence indicates that the astrologers were following same well-laid, indisputable, absolute dictum, which they did not dare to change (like some complicated, imported machinery, which the local mechanics do not dare to modify). In contrast, we find that the stellar-lunar astrology, the 'Dasa system' and Rahu or Ketu positions were continuously revised, modified and there was no unanimity among the Indian astrologers, which indicate their local origin.

Nowhere could the author find any semblance of explanation on how astrology functions, except one universally known 'sloka', where it is stated that "it is the Sun which control the 'fate' of everybody on this Earth, also "the Sun is the first initiator of astrology".

The author's foray into the western astrology was even more disappointing. The Indian astrologer authors were at least honest in their conviction, whereas the western astrologers always kept a nervous, apprehensive eye on the belligerent church in the medieval period and on modern science in the present age. In the recent astrological literature, sentences are so much obfuscated and carry such ambiguity, that literally they do not convey any sense.

From the Eighties of the last century, a few votaries of western astrology tried to put the garb of scientific respectability on astrology by freely using terms as 'cosmic forces', 'cosmic rays', 'personal electricity', 'magnetic resonance', 'colour vibration' etc. without clearly defining these terminologies.

To the scientific community in general, astrology is nothing but pure superstition. A few intrepid souls as M. Gauquelin; P. Davies; H. J. Eysensk; D.K.B. Nias; R. Brown; R. Beckman etc. (Astrology and Science -Piter Davies -London 1969; Astrology Science or Superstition -St. Martin press. 1982; The Cosmic Clocks -Piter Owens -London 1969; Biological Clocks -Boston 1962; Down Wave -Panbook -London 1983) tried to establish the veracity of astrological predictions with the help of statistics and the theory of probability. Intrinsic weakness of this method of investigation is that the same base data may be generated by varied processes. As for example, the basic information may be, "a person is sure to die if his head is severed". If this datum is taken as the cardinal regulatory factor, a dead body with severed head will be recognized as a victim of decapitation. The problem with such statistics is that possibility of the head getting severed after the death is generally overlooked.

From the Thirties of the 20th century when it was noticed that number of accidents and incidence of crime with violence increases on Earth with the increase of the number and areas of sunspots and enhancement of solar activities, a vague notion arose that the solar electro-magnetic energy reaching this Earth's surface somehow influences the thinking process (emotion?) of the human brain.

Though originally suggested by J. Eysenck and D.K.B. Nias (1982), it was Percy Seymour (Astrology: The Evidences of Science 1988, Lennard Publishing) who came out boldly with the postulation that the solar-terrestrial, and interplanetary -terrestrial magnetic impulses are the agents of astrological 'Planetary influence'.

Seymour's book was subjected to severe criticism by established astronomers and astrophysicists as "unsupported speculation, founded neither on known facts nor on physical calculations". Astrologers were also not happy with this work. Credentials of Seymour as an astronomer and astrophysicist is beyond reproach, but his handling of astrology at the best can be described as amateurish. Fervent enthusiasm is a poor substitute of cold fact. Percy Seymour relied upon western astrology which is primarily planetary transition and aspect based, a little understood branch of astrology bereft of universally accepted grammar. Due to the use of 'aspect based astrology' Seymour is of the opinion that the solar planets from time to time to time fall into striking geometric patterns (trine, square, angle etc.) and array themselves on one or the other side of the Sun. The enhanced pull of combined gravity will influence the emission of solar wind. Certain planetary patterns are responsible for the reversal of the Sun's magnetic field and a new sunspot cycle begins. Planetary alignments are thus the impetus for violent solar activities which in turn will influence the terrestrial magnetic field, and through it the whole biosphere.

Astronomers will not buy this suggestion easily. Not to say anything about computer -simulation, even comparatively easy calculation done with the help of any standard ephemeris will show the planetary alignment in a definite period in any individual year. These could have been superimposed on the available data on sunspot intensity. Astrologers will find Seymour's hypothesis unacceptable, as the wholesale increase or decrease of solar magnetic intensity will affect the solar system in totality including the biosphere on the Earth. It is not clear how it can affect the 'Fate of an individual' separately. Moreover Yavanacharya and Vaidyanath Dixit have separately worked out the 60 yrs. cycle of good or bad years (Abdaphalam) where the periodicity of bad years has close resemblance with the periodicity of sunspot cycles a few centuries before even H. J. Eysenck suggested the possibility.

This wide but unsystematic reading by the present author resulted in the emergence of a conviction that the mainstream Indian astrology, which some scholars prefer to call the "Hindu astrology" is actually comprised of three independent strands of astrology either generated within or imported in different historical period to India and then woven together to form the mainstream Indian predictive astrology.